RECENT  POSTS:  » In prep for Pope's 2015 visit, World Meeting of Families readies gay stigma, exclusion » Today in ambition: NOM cofounder vows to fight marriage equality for 100 years » Video: Mississippian who made soldier his lifestyle choice seeks freedom based on unchosen orientation » One of America's most anti-gay organizations rallies for the Duggars; because of course they would » Photo: Stop! Turn around! Don't let NOM force you onto the dead-end pier that is their cause! » One day, two country singers—zero closets » Fringe pro-discrimination group thinks it can stop companies from sponsoring HRC event; adorable » Video: Josh Duggar promoting civil inequality for thousands of grown kids (and counting) » Brian Brown's focus on Kansas, Gov. Brownback shows how much of a political game this is for him » Tiny fraction of North Carolina magistrates choose to free up their days rather than serve local gays  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

01/29/2009

We're Number 1 (if you're not gay)! We're number 1 (if you're not gay)!

by Jeremy Hooper

 Osc Images 05701When it comes to most issues, social conservatives like to position America as the non-debatable leader, #1 the world over. But when it comes to extending the same benefits to same-sex partners of governor workers as their heterosexually-married counterparts current receive, "country first" types like Tony Perkins are quite aggressive in their belief that America, land of the free and home of the brave, should never catch up with those "other nations" who have chosen to value their gays:

With some of their greatest allies now in place in key Cabinet posts, homosexual interest groups are lining up to reap the benefits. Literally. This week, the organization Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs submitted a formal complaint to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arguing that same-sex partners deserve the same perks as the spouses of married government workers. More than 2,000 federal employees signed onto the letter, asking for access to paid travel, government medical care, anti-terrorism training, foreign language training, and diplomatic passports or visas for their significant others. Clinton flirted with the idea at her confirmation hearing, saying, "...[O]ther nations have moved to extend that partnership benefit." I would remind Madame Secretary that we are not "other nations." Acquiescing would undermine the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and force taxpayers to for the bill for a lifestyle many find morally objectionable.
Working at State May Have Its Perks [FRC]

200901290955He would "remind" Madame Secretary? How patronizing. And the point on which he would send her a reminder is that we have a right to lag behind other nations when it comes to equality? How anti-everything-America-should-stand-for! And he wants us to lag behind in this civil area because of certain people's faith-based beliefs? How offensive to those of us who find Tony's brand of brazen bias to go against their own moral codes!

But Tony does have one good idea in his post: he invites readers to "voice your values by calling the State Department at 202-647-4000." We couldn't agree more. We encourage you to take a second and voice your value on the subject of all couples being fairly valued!

**Read more on this subject: Foreign Policy Workers Ask U.S. To Back Benefits for Gay Partners [WaPo]

**NOTE: Obviously Sec. Clinton did not say these words. Our graphic is just our own silliness.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

You know, I wish we'd here more about gay federal employees not in the State Department. When can we expect to see ALL lgbt executive branch employees receive partner benefits? We don't all work in State, but that's all I seem to hear about.

Posted by: Jamie | Jan 29, 2009 10:48:20 AM

Public officials can consider voting and polls in their decision making process, but they should never refer to these in support of their positions. People choose one candidate over another for various inexplicable reasons. One cannot assume their vote represents support for one issue alone.

Posted by: Bill Ware | Jan 29, 2009 11:49:06 AM

What is this in reference to, Bill -- the Clinton graphic? That was just a silly statement on Tony no longer having his buddies in power.

But that being said, I think it COMPLETELY fair to suggest that Americans, by casting a vote for Obama (or Clinton, for that matter), have cast a vote for LGBT civil equality. While not yet a marriage equality supporter, he made no bones about being supportive of benefit parity.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Jan 29, 2009 11:58:39 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails